Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 1033 (AP)

V. Bhaskar v. A. P. C. P. D. C. Ltd.

2013-11-19

DAMA SESHADRI NAIDU

body2013
ORDER Dama Seshadri Naidu, J. 1. The present Writ Petition is filed by the petitioner seeking a direction to the respondents to appoint him to the post of Sub-Engineer, apart from disposing of the petitioner's representation, dated 15.12.2005. The facts in brief are that the petitioner, who is a Diploma Holder in Electrical and Electronics, initially worked as a contract labourer from September, 1996 to February, 1999 in Nalgonda Circle of the erstwhile Andhra Pradesh State Electricity Board (A.P.S.E.B.). In course of time, pursuant to the orders in W.P. No. 5064 of 1999, the 2nd respondent published a notification in the news papers, calling for applications from eligible labourers for the post of LDCs and Sub Engineers, subject to their requisite qualification and suitability. The said notification is said to be in terms of B.P.Ms. No. 36, dated 18.05.1997 issued by the erstwhile APSEB to absorb Casual Labour, Village Electricity workers and Contract Labour. 2. Having the requisite qualification, and having put in the necessary man-days, the petitioner applied for the post of Sub-Engineer and later faced the interview, which was held on 12.05.2001. The 2nd respondent, however, by Letter Dt. 17.12.2002 informed the petitioner to wait for the result in W.P. No. 17163 of 2003. Eventually, through Letter dated 20.03.2003, the 2nd respondent intimated to the petitioner that he had not secured sufficient ranking to be considered in the 50% of vacancy posts available as on 18.05.1997. 3. It is the case of the petitioner that the respondents have filled up 10 posts and the 11th post of Sub-Engineer has still been lying vacant. Since the respondents are engaging Sub-Engineers on contract basis, which is indicative of the fact that there are vacancies, the respondent authorities ought to have considered his case for regular appointment. The earlier rejection was only on a technicality of not having sufficient posts, despite possessing the requisite qualification and meeting the other eligibility criteria by the petitioner. Though the petitioner has made representations to the respondent authorities, it is to no avail. Accordingly, the petitioner has filed the present Writ Petition seeking a direction to the respondents to appoint him to the substantive post of Sub-Engineer. 4. Though the petitioner has made representations to the respondent authorities, it is to no avail. Accordingly, the petitioner has filed the present Writ Petition seeking a direction to the respondents to appoint him to the substantive post of Sub-Engineer. 4. The respondent Corporation i.e., Andhra Pradesh Central Power Distribution Company Limited (A.P.C.P.D.C.L., 'the Corporation' for brevity), which has come into existence in the wake of bifurcation or unbundling of the erstwhile A.P.S.E.B., filed its Counter and opposed the claim of the petitioner. The principal contention on the part of the respondent Corporation is that though there was an exercise to recruit ex-Casual Labour, Village Electricity Workers and Contract Labour in terms of B.P.Ms. No. 36, dt. 18.05.1997, the petitioner, having faced the interview, could not come up in the rank to secure employment in the available vacancies. Accordingly, the rejection of his candidature was informed to the petitioner. It is further contended that all the available vacancies of Sub-Engineer posts have already been filled up by the candidates, who are meritorious in terms of B.P.Ms. No. 36, dated 18.05.1997. As such, there are no vacancies. 5. The respondent authorities have also placed on record that the petitioner earlier filed W.P. No. 17893 of 2002 seeking the same relief, and that, subsequently, he filed C.C. No. 50 of 2003, both of which were disposed of by this Court. It is contended by the respondent Corporation that B.P.Ms. No. 271, dt. 31.12.1997 covers vacancies which are not subject matter of B.P.Ms. No. 36, dt. 18.05.1997 and as such, the representation of the petitioner was rightly not considered by the Corporation. 6. In sum and substance, it is averred by the respondent Corporation that the number of vacancies available under the scheme as on the date of issuance of the said B.P.Ms. No. 36, dt. 18.05.1997 were filled with the meritorious candidates as had been qualified as per the eligibility criteria fixed in the said BPMs. It is also placed on record that B.P.Ms. No. 36 was subsequently withdrawn; as such, the petitioner could not stake any claim to the present vacancies, if any. 7. In the factual back drop and rival pleadings, the learned counsel for the petitioner has strenuously contended that even at the earliest point of time, when the initial recruitment took place in terms of B.P.Ms. No. 36, the petitioner did not suffer from any lack of qualification. 7. In the factual back drop and rival pleadings, the learned counsel for the petitioner has strenuously contended that even at the earliest point of time, when the initial recruitment took place in terms of B.P.Ms. No. 36, the petitioner did not suffer from any lack of qualification. He was only edged out by other candidates who put in more number of man-days. Even the respondent Corporation in its Counter has expressly admitted that he could not be considered only on the ground that he did not put in more number of man-days, and that for that reason, the petitioner's turn did not come about to claim a post in the available vacancies. 8. It is further contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the Corporation issued B.P.Ms. No. 271, dt. 31.12.1997; para No. 6 of which specifically records that even future vacancies would be considered for filling up the post of those workmen, who had earlier put in sufficient number of man-days, as was indicated in B.P.Ms. No. 36, dated 18.05.1997. Accordingly, the learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that at least now the candidature of the petitioner ought to be considered by the respondent Corporation, lest he should suffer immeasurably, given the fact that he has already been barred by age for regular recruitment. 9. Per contra, the learned Standing Counsel for the respondent Corporation has contended that the Notification under B.P.Ms. No. 271, dated 31.12.1997 operates in a different sphere and it would not be read in conjunction with B.P.Ms. No. 36, dated 18.05.1997, inasmuch as both have come into existence to serve different purposes. The learned Standing Counsel has further submitted that earlier the petitioner's case was considered, but he could not be given any employment since in the limited vacancies existing then, those workmen who had put in more number of man-days than the petitioner were considered. Accordingly, the petitioner could not make any grievance out of it. 10. Summing up his submissions, the learned Standing Counsel has stated that the action of the respondents cannot be found fault with and no relief can be granted to the petitioner either under B.P.Ms. No. 36 or under B.P.Ms. No. 271. 11. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents, apart from perusing the record. 12. No. 36 or under B.P.Ms. No. 271. 11. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents, apart from perusing the record. 12. Without going to much length in adjudicating the issue, it can safely be said that the petitioner did serve the respondent Corporation when it was A.P.S.E.B. and was eligible to be appointed under B.P.Ms. No. 36, dated 18.05.1997. It is equally indisputable that at the time of initial recruitment, there were other candidates, who put in more number of man-days than the petitioner; he was thus edged out of the competition. The fact, however, remains that the Corporation in his erstwhile form of A.P.S.E.B. did come up with B.P.Ms. No. 271, dated, 31.12.1997, para No. 6 of which is as follows: If any Court directions are received after the interviews are conducted to consider the case of EX-Casual Labours, Village Electricity Workers and Contract Labour, interviews may be conducted to such cases once in 3 months commencing from January, 1998, for consideration against the existing vacancies/future vacancies as the case may be. 13. A perusal of the above said clause would indicate that B.P.Ms. No. 36, dated 18.05.1997 would not be the sole source of recruitment as far as ex-Casual Labours are concerned. It is true that the recruitments were effected initially, as was referred to above, to the extent of existing vacancies at that time. Taking into account the spill over of the candidates who could not fit themselves into the slot of 50% vacancies, those ex-Casual Labourers or Contract Labours could not be shut out permanently. Precisely, for this reason, the Corporation, perhaps, has taken a kind view in providing another window of opportunity to the said people. Conceding that there is any element of ambiguity in Clause No. 6 in B.P.Ms. No. 271, dated 31.12.1997, this Court feels that the same ought to be given a liberal interpretation to sub-serve the ends of justice, given the fact that the petitioner, in this particular instance, is now aged about 38 years having no prospect of securing any employment in Government service. 14. Indisputably the petitioner has served the erstwhile A.P.S.E.B. and has been hoping for an employment all these years, especially since the very Corporation has taken up a policy of recruiting those ex-Casual Labourers or Contract Labourers and Village Electricity Workers. 14. Indisputably the petitioner has served the erstwhile A.P.S.E.B. and has been hoping for an employment all these years, especially since the very Corporation has taken up a policy of recruiting those ex-Casual Labourers or Contract Labourers and Village Electricity Workers. Since the petitioner, despite his qualification and eligibility, was edged out on the mere technicality of man-days, this Court feels that the benefit of Clause No. 6 under B.P.Ms. No. 271, dt. 31.12.1997 is required to be given to him. 15. Learned counsel for the petitioner is fair enough in making his submission to the effect that though the petitioner could not make any substantive claim to the post, given the policy of the respondent Corporation and the pitiable condition of the petitioner, he ought to be considered in future vacancies, provided he is otherwise suitable, instead of recruiting totally strangers either on Contract basis or on regular basis. Appreciating the above submission, this Court is inclined to pass the following order: 16. In the light of the above facts and circumstances of the case, as and when regular vacancies arise, or have already arisen, the case of the petitioner based on his representation dated 15.12.2005 shall be considered for the purpose of appointing him to the post of Sub-Engineer, subject to all other eligibility criteria, save the age factor. With the above observation, the Writ Petition is disposed of. No order as to costs. The miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this Writ Petition shall stand closed.